Feel free to edit what Wikipedia says about the DMCA then. The DMCA itself is pretty convoluted legalese for that bit, but if the customer provides a valid counter-notification and the service provider does *not* reinstate it, the service provider becomes liable again if the customer brings legal action over the take-down.
Which copyright laws are those? The DMCA's take-down provisions have a corresponding put-back provision, and the law stops there. (Google may have some term of service that lets it censor content; I don't post stuff on YouTube, so I haven't researched that.)
The take-down: Pretty familiar, although the legal checklist of requirements (to make it a valid take-down notice) is not always as well-known.
The put-back: After receiving a take-down notice, the person who provided the allegedly infringing content can object (with a similar, but shorter, list of required statements). If the service provider receives a valid counter-notice, they must relay that to the rights holder, and if they are then not notified by the rights holder within 10-14 business days that the rights holder has filed a lawsuit, the service provider must reinstate the content.
It is not clear where this process stopped or broke down in this case.
No, I gave an example of a broken setup to demonstrate that a lot of small organizations (who still pay for business-class service that should work properly) cannot always get valid reverse DNS records for their mail servers. Clear enough now?
In practice, that doesn't help much. Before switching to my current Internet connection, I had business-class cable modem service because that was required to get a static IP address from that ISP. My IP address had a PTR record with a non-resolving hostname (which looked a fair bit like a dynamic address, in spite of being static). When I tried to call the ISP about it, I got a bunch of confused tech support people who could never figure out who could fix the PTR.
A lot of small organizations have ISPs (or just service plans) that will not let them choose RDNS records. They would have to outsource their mail services to send outbound mail through a computer with a valid RDNS record.
Catholics obviously don't count as Christians -- they've been in the business for 1500 years longer than the Protestants, which excludes them from consideration.
You would need some honking huge capacitors to provide a half-second of hold-up for a typical desktop once AC goes away -- but milliseconds is achievable. That is more than a CPU needs to flush cache to RAM, but not enough to cleanly shut down certain USB-powered devices (such rotating drives).
That is very different than a general "loser pays" system. The barriers to prove malicious prosecution (or the other triggers to recover attorney's fees, rather than -- say -- just court costs) are very high. Courts excuse a lot of things that laypersons might call frivolous on the basis that people have a Constitutional right to seek redress through the courts.
Beyond your inability to read what I wrote, naming convicted corporations is irrelevant to the whole issue. I would explain why, but based on your tin-foil-hat responses so far, that would take all day and you would totally misunderstand in the end.
I generally do not pay attention to criminal convictions because they are not relevant to me. That is true whether the convict is a corporation or an individual; if we count as percentages of their respective (not-necessarily-convicted) populations, I can probably name more convicted corporations than I could convicted individuals. Your reasoning is as weak as your knowledge.
I never suggested that Arthur Andersen and Enron were the only criminal corporations. I have no idea where you got that idea -- I just picked one notable example of a case where a corporation was found guilty under the criminal code, and that conviction had very serious consequences for it. You were the one who asked if criminal law should apply to corporations (apparently when under the delusion that it does not).
You totally missed the point of my last question. I believe that the rights of a corporation do not add to the rights of the individuals who make up the corporation. They are a way to recognize that those rights still exist, even though the corporation (rather than the people) owns some assets on behalf of those individuals. In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court said that people do have a right to pool their money and effectively speak to the public, and that forming a corporation to do so (for example, so that the normal rules for corporate governance apply) does not reduce or remove that right. You seem to think that the ruling somehow recognizes certain rights twice as much when corporations are involved.
You asked about criminal liability, not going to jail. Obviously we cannot put a corporation in jail, but ask Arthur Andersen LLP if a corporation that is found guilty of criminal conduct gets off the hook easily (even if that verdict is later overturned).
A corporation is obviously not a person in the most common sense, but a corporation does have legal personhood. If you think a word -- whether "person" or most others -- has exactly the same meaning in all situations, you should probably pay more attention to how people, and the law, use language. (For example, according to a judge defending the PPACA from a facial challenge, a penalty assessed by the IRS is a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act but is not a tax for the purposes of the Capitation Clause.) If you prefer, generalize "one man, one vote" as "one individual, one vote".
What do you think is special about the term "unabridged rights" that makes you keep using that phrase? Why do you think that corporate rights are somehow additions to the rights of the individuals who own or fund the corporation?
Corporate rights are necessary for a lot of practical niceties. For example, without corporate rights, there is little basis to prosecute someone who walks out of a chain restaurant without paying.
After Citizens United, there is no doctrine that corporations have "the same unabridged rights of a person under the 14th Amendment". Corporations are already subject to criminal law. They cannot vote because of the principle "one [person], one vote". They cannot run for office because they could not effectively hold office -- corporations are steered the people who own them, and those people can change.
Exactly what planet are you from? Corporate personhood is a long-established doctrine. Citizens United only recognizes that people who organize as a corporation can exercise their First Amendment rights through that corporation.
What is your point? That corporations that make things will now have the same flexibility to endorse candidates that unions have always had? That individuals who pool their money to advocate certain causes (which is what Citizens United was) can publish their common point of view? The rules that limit coordination between an election campaign and outside parties are still in effect, as I mentioned in my earlier post; for a corporation to pay for a campaign ad would be an illegal donation of goods and/or services to the campaign.
If you have some specific, plausible, worry then please share it. As it is, you are just reinforcing the tin-foil-hat impression.
The part where you totally misrepresent what the Citizens United ruling does. (It allows corporations to spend money on campaign ads, rather than requiring them to create a PAC to spend the money. It does not allow them to donate to election campaigns, it does not allow any new kinds of coordination between corporations and election campaigns, it does not change any donation limits, and it does not reduce any disclosure requirements.)
Of course, you are in good company -- the President of the United States is (or was) apparently almost as deluded as you are about what the ruling says.
And costs at Wal-Mart are ridiculously high because the CAPITALISM factor is involved, right?
Hint: More than half of US health care expenditures already come from governments (state and Federal). Federal tax law means that it is cheaper for companies to pay for employees' insurance than to do anything else, and that insulates those price negotiations -- and the associated impact on expenditures -- from consumer feedback. Employees tend to think that they have no input into their insurance options, and negligible impact on the costs, so they might as well milk their insurance for all it is worth.
The comment that started the thread explained the reason for doubting that government-created rules would generate good outcomes, but apparently you can't remember that far back.
If you think what I described is a regulatory process, you clearly have experience with neither courts nor regulatory processes. Do you think the courts act as a regulatory process for insurance fraud or murder?
"Professionally trained bureaucrats" sounds like a criminal class by definition. They should not make rules for anyone except other career bureaucrats. The rules they make are the products of regulatory capture by some of the companies being regulated: The bureaucrats either need to be taught by those companies, or they come from those companies.
Courts would decide whether a data holder fulfilled a duty to protect data they hold, just like they decide (as necessary) whether people or groups fulfil fiduciary or other duties under other laws.
Companies are companies. Industry groups are what companies form when they have a common problem to solve, and working together to solve that problem is better than trying to solve it separately. (Courts might accept industry standards as sufficient care, or they might not. I would just expect companies to come together to try to figure out how to address security, because it would probably be acceptable under antitrust law and it lets them air out potential protection schemes.)
Consumers cannot sue right now because they have no property rights in this data, and they do not suffer harm when the data is lost -- they only suffer (actual) harm when the data is misused, and the company that loses the data is approximately never the entity that engages in identity theft.
Putting a dollar value on a breach the hardest part of the scheme, but somehow we put price tags on other intangibles (such as intentional infliction of mental distress). I expect there would be arguments back and forth over the valuations, but that those would be no worse -- and probably better -- than what we see for things like medical malpractice.
Sure: A liability system. If a company leaks my private data due to insufficient care, let me sue them (either individually or as part of a class) to help restore the security of that data, or at least to compensate me for the loss. Instead of saying "thou shalt follow these rules", just say "thou shalt have effective controls", and let companies or industry groups figure out how to live up to the duty to protect private data.
Perhaps in the sense that Wikileaks wants to decide when other enterprises can be transparent, and also wants to decide when it can be transparent, there is no double standard.
In the sense that Wikileaks desires the rule to be "*we* never have to be transparent, only those other enterprises do" -- there absolutely is a double standard. This applies in particular to the "protection" reason that you describe: Why does Wikileaks deserve such protection when other enterprises do not?
In the sense that Inconexo put it -- where public knowledge and control are the metrics -- there is also a double standard.
Slashdot Mirror
How many pre-iPhone mobile devices opted for high-resolution touchscreen displays as the primary input device?
Once you choose that, you can either slide or tap a pattern to unlock. There aren't really practical alternatives.
Feel free to edit what Wikipedia says about the DMCA then. The DMCA itself is pretty convoluted legalese for that bit, but if the customer provides a valid counter-notification and the service provider does *not* reinstate it, the service provider becomes liable again if the customer brings legal action over the take-down.
Which copyright laws are those? The DMCA's take-down provisions have a corresponding put-back provision, and the law stops there. (Google may have some term of service that lets it censor content; I don't post stuff on YouTube, so I haven't researched that.)
The take-down: Pretty familiar, although the legal checklist of requirements (to make it a valid take-down notice) is not always as well-known.
The put-back: After receiving a take-down notice, the person who provided the allegedly infringing content can object (with a similar, but shorter, list of required statements). If the service provider receives a valid counter-notice, they must relay that to the rights holder, and if they are then not notified by the rights holder within 10-14 business days that the rights holder has filed a lawsuit, the service provider must reinstate the content.
It is not clear where this process stopped or broke down in this case.
Cite for "typically", please? Mine did not.
No, I gave an example of a broken setup to demonstrate that a lot of small organizations (who still pay for business-class service that should work properly) cannot always get valid reverse DNS records for their mail servers. Clear enough now?
In practice, that doesn't help much. Before switching to my current Internet connection, I had business-class cable modem service because that was required to get a static IP address from that ISP. My IP address had a PTR record with a non-resolving hostname (which looked a fair bit like a dynamic address, in spite of being static). When I tried to call the ISP about it, I got a bunch of confused tech support people who could never figure out who could fix the PTR.
A lot of small organizations have ISPs (or just service plans) that will not let them choose RDNS records. They would have to outsource their mail services to send outbound mail through a computer with a valid RDNS record.
Catholics obviously don't count as Christians -- they've been in the business for 1500 years longer than the Protestants, which excludes them from consideration.
You would need some honking huge capacitors to provide a half-second of hold-up for a typical desktop once AC goes away -- but milliseconds is achievable. That is more than a CPU needs to flush cache to RAM, but not enough to cleanly shut down certain USB-powered devices (such rotating drives).
That is very different than a general "loser pays" system. The barriers to prove malicious prosecution (or the other triggers to recover attorney's fees, rather than -- say -- just court costs) are very high. Courts excuse a lot of things that laypersons might call frivolous on the basis that people have a Constitutional right to seek redress through the courts.
Beyond your inability to read what I wrote, naming convicted corporations is irrelevant to the whole issue. I would explain why, but based on your tin-foil-hat responses so far, that would take all day and you would totally misunderstand in the end.
I generally do not pay attention to criminal convictions because they are not relevant to me. That is true whether the convict is a corporation or an individual; if we count as percentages of their respective (not-necessarily-convicted) populations, I can probably name more convicted corporations than I could convicted individuals. Your reasoning is as weak as your knowledge.
I never suggested that Arthur Andersen and Enron were the only criminal corporations. I have no idea where you got that idea -- I just picked one notable example of a case where a corporation was found guilty under the criminal code, and that conviction had very serious consequences for it. You were the one who asked if criminal law should apply to corporations (apparently when under the delusion that it does not).
You totally missed the point of my last question. I believe that the rights of a corporation do not add to the rights of the individuals who make up the corporation. They are a way to recognize that those rights still exist, even though the corporation (rather than the people) owns some assets on behalf of those individuals. In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court said that people do have a right to pool their money and effectively speak to the public, and that forming a corporation to do so (for example, so that the normal rules for corporate governance apply) does not reduce or remove that right. You seem to think that the ruling somehow recognizes certain rights twice as much when corporations are involved.
You asked about criminal liability, not going to jail. Obviously we cannot put a corporation in jail, but ask Arthur Andersen LLP if a corporation that is found guilty of criminal conduct gets off the hook easily (even if that verdict is later overturned).
A corporation is obviously not a person in the most common sense, but a corporation does have legal personhood. If you think a word -- whether "person" or most others -- has exactly the same meaning in all situations, you should probably pay more attention to how people, and the law, use language. (For example, according to a judge defending the PPACA from a facial challenge, a penalty assessed by the IRS is a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act but is not a tax for the purposes of the Capitation Clause.) If you prefer, generalize "one man, one vote" as "one individual, one vote".
What do you think is special about the term "unabridged rights" that makes you keep using that phrase? Why do you think that corporate rights are somehow additions to the rights of the individuals who own or fund the corporation?
Corporate rights are necessary for a lot of practical niceties. For example, without corporate rights, there is little basis to prosecute someone who walks out of a chain restaurant without paying.
After Citizens United, there is no doctrine that corporations have "the same unabridged rights of a person under the 14th Amendment". Corporations are already subject to criminal law. They cannot vote because of the principle "one [person], one vote". They cannot run for office because they could not effectively hold office -- corporations are steered the people who own them, and those people can change.
Did you have any more stupid questions?
Exactly what planet are you from? Corporate personhood is a long-established doctrine. Citizens United only recognizes that people who organize as a corporation can exercise their First Amendment rights through that corporation.
What is your point? That corporations that make things will now have the same flexibility to endorse candidates that unions have always had? That individuals who pool their money to advocate certain causes (which is what Citizens United was) can publish their common point of view? The rules that limit coordination between an election campaign and outside parties are still in effect, as I mentioned in my earlier post; for a corporation to pay for a campaign ad would be an illegal donation of goods and/or services to the campaign.
If you have some specific, plausible, worry then please share it. As it is, you are just reinforcing the tin-foil-hat impression.
The part where you totally misrepresent what the Citizens United ruling does. (It allows corporations to spend money on campaign ads, rather than requiring them to create a PAC to spend the money. It does not allow them to donate to election campaigns, it does not allow any new kinds of coordination between corporations and election campaigns, it does not change any donation limits, and it does not reduce any disclosure requirements.)
Of course, you are in good company -- the President of the United States is (or was) apparently almost as deluded as you are about what the ruling says.
And costs at Wal-Mart are ridiculously high because the CAPITALISM factor is involved, right?
Hint: More than half of US health care expenditures already come from governments (state and Federal). Federal tax law means that it is cheaper for companies to pay for employees' insurance than to do anything else, and that insulates those price negotiations -- and the associated impact on expenditures -- from consumer feedback. Employees tend to think that they have no input into their insurance options, and negligible impact on the costs, so they might as well milk their insurance for all it is worth.
The comment that started the thread explained the reason for doubting that government-created rules would generate good outcomes, but apparently you can't remember that far back.
If you think what I described is a regulatory process, you clearly have experience with neither courts nor regulatory processes. Do you think the courts act as a regulatory process for insurance fraud or murder?
"Professionally trained bureaucrats" sounds like a criminal class by definition. They should not make rules for anyone except other career bureaucrats. The rules they make are the products of regulatory capture by some of the companies being regulated: The bureaucrats either need to be taught by those companies, or they come from those companies.
Courts would decide whether a data holder fulfilled a duty to protect data they hold, just like they decide (as necessary) whether people or groups fulfil fiduciary or other duties under other laws.
Companies are companies. Industry groups are what companies form when they have a common problem to solve, and working together to solve that problem is better than trying to solve it separately. (Courts might accept industry standards as sufficient care, or they might not. I would just expect companies to come together to try to figure out how to address security, because it would probably be acceptable under antitrust law and it lets them air out potential protection schemes.)
Consumers cannot sue right now because they have no property rights in this data, and they do not suffer harm when the data is lost -- they only suffer (actual) harm when the data is misused, and the company that loses the data is approximately never the entity that engages in identity theft.
Putting a dollar value on a breach the hardest part of the scheme, but somehow we put price tags on other intangibles (such as intentional infliction of mental distress). I expect there would be arguments back and forth over the valuations, but that those would be no worse -- and probably better -- than what we see for things like medical malpractice.
Sure: A liability system. If a company leaks my private data due to insufficient care, let me sue them (either individually or as part of a class) to help restore the security of that data, or at least to compensate me for the loss. Instead of saying "thou shalt follow these rules", just say "thou shalt have effective controls", and let companies or industry groups figure out how to live up to the duty to protect private data.
... and no true Dutchman would call himself an engineer without a P.E. license!
Perhaps in the sense that Wikileaks wants to decide when other enterprises can be transparent, and also wants to decide when it can be transparent, there is no double standard.
In the sense that Wikileaks desires the rule to be "*we* never have to be transparent, only those other enterprises do" -- there absolutely is a double standard. This applies in particular to the "protection" reason that you describe: Why does Wikileaks deserve such protection when other enterprises do not?
In the sense that Inconexo put it -- where public knowledge and control are the metrics -- there is also a double standard.